Sen. Lindsay Graham on March 10, 2016.....



““I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination.”
~Lindsey Graham
March 10, 2016”

Didn't I hear someone say something like "elections have consequences"???

“The principle is the same. Whether it’s before the election or after the election, the principle is the American people are choosing their next president, and their next president should pick this Supreme Court nominee.”

Sen. McConnell March 2016

Anyone who doesn't press an advantage if it is handed to you is stupid. And you know as well as I do that both sides would. Don't tell me lofty things. Use common sense.

"Humble" might be OK for a priest. I don't want a president that is "humble."

Simply pointing out hypocrisy, and as an active GOP supporter at the time, without debating Garlands resume, I was embarrassed by McConnells action, and frankly do not recall such blatant political game playing ever. No discussion, no hearing, nothing for almost a year to simply not allow a legitimate confirmation chance.

Part of the trouble in the last hearings were that many are sore and mad about that, and that is something the GOP should be wary if....yes, hypocrisy is part of it.....saw it first hand many times in my career, never so blatant on such an important issue. Not even a wave to what is good for the country.

I guess that is one spin on it

May she R.I.P. Is there going to be issues if the President nominates someone prior to the election? YES. If she had passed a year ago and the President put up names for nomination would there have been issues? YES. If she were to have passed a few months from now, the day after the election would there be issues? YES. Just my thoughts, but it seems like waiting or not waiting has problems, we need to move ahead.

You claimed her choices were because she's ambitious. I refuted that - because once you are SCOTUS, you have realized any career-related ambition you can possibly realize. That is the highest level in the game of politics. Appointed for life, there's no demotions, no firing, no forced retirement, and you along with your other fellow-life-appointees, call the shots. That is the end-game.

Ambition, at that point in your life, is 100% completely invalid and irrelevant. When you are as high as you can get, there is nothing left to be ambitious about, with regards to your career.

I do not know which post you are responding to, but it wasn't mine.

In theory, there are too many Republican senators, including McConnell, in vulnerable seats to chance a vote pre-election. If McSally loses her seat in the special election, the vote will take place before her opponent takes the seat, which he could do as early as Nov 30. No matter who wins the White House, Trump will nominate a new justice who will be confirmed if Grassley, Collins, Murkowski, and Graham vote party line. It could take decades to achieve anything resembling an ideological balance at SCOTUS.

I take that comment to mean, "Good thing she is no longer suffering".

May she rest in peace.

However it may take 4 1/2 years before there is a new president!

Sorry, I mixed posters. You said "that's one spin on it" and I mistakenly thought you were Ithos, who was the person I responded to in the first place.

I have very strong feelings about this election, but there is really no point in letting it drive you crazy. When I get in bed and cannot clear my mind I just tell myself life has been going on for many years and it will continue without my mind worrying about it. Things always seem to work out in the end, although this may take a long time to get to the end.

Patience, grasshopper, 4 gop senators will not vote scotus nominee until AFTER election